c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 287 collective agreements. As grounds for this, among other things, it was stated that the parties on the labour market should regulate their dealings themselves by collective agreements.They especially rejected that a labour court would be entrusted with the right to order mandatory arbitration in legal disputes.They feared that the professionally trained jurists of the court - using the fact that section 23 was included in most of the collective agreements - would re-interpret disputes of interest into legal disputes that were protected by the obligation for industrial peace by reading hidden terms into the agreements.This trick would mean that the employer was given a broad framework in order, for example, to change work assignment without needing to renegotiate wages.The court’s verdicts in pilot cases would then constitute precedents that would fix in place the legal praxis for a long time.There was a strong element of distrust of jurists in the opposition to the legislation. In the autumn of 1928, Lindman, the leader of the Conservative Party, formed a government and stated that it was especially urgent to strengthen the feeling of togetherness between company owners and workers that constituted the best condition for increased industrial peace and security on the labour market.At the turn of the month between November and December 1928, the government invited SAF and LO to consultations. Once again, the established views were set up in opposition to each other.The Social Democrats and LO criticised section 23, which was regarded as entailed severe consequences for the workers and therefore was not the employers’ private matter. They instead recommended increased influence for the workers, which, among other things, would lead to more rationalised production. Hjalmar von Sydow, SAF’s chairman, maintained the same position he had adopted since the first decade of the 20th century. 9. 7 the stage i s set for the swedi sh labour court
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=